Graduate Report Fall/Winter 2010 cover
Graduate Report: Fall / Winter 2010 - In-House Counsel

A substantial number of UConn Law graduates are working as general counsels and in-house counsels at a wide range of corporations, government agencies, universities and nonprofits organizations around the world. Each of them has his/her unique take on life “in house,” including the following UConn Law graduates who were asked to chat about their careers including:

Michael Callahan ’95, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Yahoo! Inc.

Patrick B. Dorsey ’77, Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Tiffany & Co.

Steven M. Glick ’84, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Public Storage

Kathleen M. Hopko ’86, Vice President, Secretary and Associate General Counsel, United Technologies Corporation

Suzanne M. O’Conor ’99, General Counsel, The University of Connecticut Foundation, Inc.

John N. Rigas ’79, Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel (retired), Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Richard A. Stamm ’92, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

James Edward Venable, Jr. ’92, Senior Director of Labor Relations, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Southern Business Region)

David S. Winakor ’96, General Counsel, Wesleyan University

(Photo: Venable, Glick, Stamm, Winakor and Hopko)

Q. What was the career path that led to your current position?

Callahan: After (graduating) from UConn Law School in ’95, I joined Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom in Boston as a mergers and acquisitions and general corporate attorney. In 1998, I relocated to the San Francisco Bay area with Skadden Arps …then in early 1999 went in house to a digital imaging company (Electronics for Imaging) to work as counsel and in business development/strategic relations. In the fall of 1999 I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to join Yahoo! as a corporate/mergers and acquisitions attorney.  In 2003, I was promoted to general counsel, and over the years have taken on global government affairs and intellectual property responsibility, as well as global legal affairs.

Dorsey: I spent two years in general practice and five years in the legal department of a large, multi-national high technology conglomerate, where I practiced securities, labor, commercial and technology licensing law.

Glick: After eight years in private practice at Shearman & Sterling in New York, London and Paris, I served as general counsel for two UK public companies, the international division of a U.S. public company, and the Americas region of a French public company, before being appointed to my current position in February 2010. I have worked in-house as GC in a wide array of industries including medical devices, hotels, defense products, betting and gaming, entertainment and now real estate/self storage. I also have held senior positions involving business development in the U.S., Europe and Japan, licensing internationally and general management in Asia Pacific and Latin America.

Hopko: I have been a lawyer with United Technologies Corporation for 24 years. (Prior to taking my current position) in 2007, I served as vice president and general counsel for Sikorsky Aircraft, a subsidiary of UTC, from 1999-2007. I had the good fortune of joining UTC as an attorney (Sikorsky’s first female attorney ever) when I graduated law school in 1986. In 1989, I was transferred to UTC’s Pratt & Whitney unit, where I spent nine years, eventually becoming Pratt & Whitney’s vice president of contract management before transferring back to Sikorsky Aircraft and serving as Sikorsky’s vice president and general counsel for nine years.

O’Conor:  After college (Holy Cross), I worked for a financial services company in Boston before I joined The University of Connecticut Foundation, Inc. as an associate director for planned giving. I later directed the Foundation’s estate and deferred giving program. After earning my law degree, I left the Foundation and worked as an associate at Shipman and Goodwin in Hartford. I later re-joined the Foundation in my current role as general counsel.

Rigas: I joined Armstrong as deputy general counsel in 1999 and became general counsel eighteen months later. In addition to my role of providing strategic direction for the
company as a member of the Office of the Chairman, I was primarily responsible for guiding Armstrong through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process to resolve its historical asbestos liability.  Prior to joining Armstrong, the majority of my legal career was spent in the Legal Department of Dow Corning Corporation in Midland, MI.  I joined Dow Corning in 1982 as a litigation attorney and held a number of different professional and management positions (there), including a three-year assignment to their European Headquarters office in Brussels, Belgium. 

Stamm: I began my legal career right out of UConn Law in the corporate and securities group at the Boston office of Dechert LLP. At Dechert, I was fortunate enough to be exposed to a wide variety of business, transactional and securities work. On a number of occasions, I worked for clients who were individual entrepreneurs and/or family-owned businesses. It was in this setting that I found my practice as a law firm associate to be most rewarding and satisfying. I joined Ocean Spray Cranberries as a staff attorney in 1996 and held various positions of increasing responsibility until being named general counsel in 2007 and vice president and secretary in early 2008.

Venable: I started as an associate with Day, Berry & Howard and worked in their labor and employment group in Boston for five years. I then took a position with the Boston Public Schools as a labor and employment attorney representing the school department in labor matters with the unions. I returned to the private sector to work in house with the Stop & Shop Supermarket Company as their director of employment and regulatory law. Though I was very happy at Stop & Shop, I wanted to take my career to the next level and acquire a greater range of responsibility. I accepted a position with Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the world.  

Winakor: I attended law school after serving as an Army officer. I was a corporate lawyer at Murtha, Cullina LLP in Hartford before transitioning in house at the Stanley Works where I served as assistant general counsel and ultimately vice president of business development responsible for merger and acquisition work. I transitioned from Stanley to Wesleyan to establish its Office of General Counsel.

Q. What is the best part about your work?

Hopko: Given the global nature of UTC’s business, I have had the opportunity to transact business on an international basis. Early in my career, I negotiated contracts and business transactions in approximately 20 international locations with a variety of customers – foreign governments, commercial customers, etc.  As I progressed through the management chain, the nature of the work changed somewhat, but continued to be fascinating. 

Callahan: Working in a fast paced and innovative business and technology environment, with ever changing challenges and competition. Also, I am fortunate to work with and lead a team of brilliant lawyers and other professionals in 24 countries around the world and learn from them every day as we help Yahoo! and the Internet grow.

O’Conor: Every day I know my work is in some small measure helping others. Whether the gifts I facilitate help support students who might otherwise not be able to attend the University, promote research to cure a dreaded disease, or buy a new tuba for the band, I know in some small way I am doing my part to enrich the lives of others.  Along the way, I enjoy exploring a broad range of legal issues.

Winakor: I get to work with some of the smartest and most engaging clients in the country. While I get to offer legal and sometimes business analysis and advice, my clients and colleagues challenge me to think about things from perspectives that I might not have even knew existed.

Stamm: This is such a special and unique job. I have the opportunity to lead an in-house legal department at a major branded consumer package goods company. At the same time, we are a farmer-owned cooperative owned by many multi-generational family farms throughout pockets of rural America. As a result, I get the personal satisfaction of delivering guidance and assistance to a collection of real individuals, their families and their businesses, with their personal livelihoods front and center. I have developed many personal relationships among our grower-owner shareholders, any one of which I imagine would be quite rare between an attorney and shareholder of a traditional investor-owned firm. I still feel as though I am working for “mom and pop.”

Rigas: I believe that the best part of my work was working with some of the leading law firms on issues critical to both Armstrong and Dow Corning. I also enjoyed the opportunity to work closely with senior business leaders to achieve the strategic goals of the company. 

Venable: Being part of the business operations and learning first-hand how business strategies are devised and implemented. It requires a new way of thinking about problems and it has opened an exciting new chapter in my career. My old clients are now my business partners.

Dorsey: The opportunity to participate in planning for the growth of the company and to contribute from both the legal and business perspectives. I particularly enjoy working with our creative group and with our diamond-sourcing division.

Glick: The best – and hardest – part of being an in-house lawyer is the constant need to learn new things (both about law and about business), but not forget what you have learned! 

Q. What particularly noteworthy or interesting work have you done in your in-house position?

Winakor:  I’ve had the pleasure of working on complex business transactions and advised groups ranging from committees dealing with student issues to emergency teams established to welcome presidential candidates to campus. The job also comes with a significant dose of sobering experiences including campus crises administration, policy enforcement and high profile litigation.

O’Conor: The general counsel’s role in a small organization lends itself to lots of interesting stories. When I was briefing cases and cramming for the bar exam, I never quite imagined that as a lawyer I would be hiking though a soggy donated lot looking for beaver dams causing “ponding” on an abutter’s property, or contemplating the legal issues surrounding a would-be “contributor” who shows up with $40,000 in cash in a duffle bag. As a general counsel, I have learned that when someone says “this must be a legal issue,” I am going to have an interesting day.

Stamm: We have had a number of fascinating and unique legal issues that relate to our structure as an agricultural cooperative under the Capper-Volstead Act – a little known statute that affords farmers limited antitrust immunity from the prohibitions of the Sherman Act. My favorite “anecdote” is from a few years ago; we were holding a board of directors meeting in cranberry country in Northern Wisconsin. On the morning of the second day, before the meeting reconvened, my wife and I visited the cranberry farm owned and operated by one of our directors. We walked the “marshes” with the director, his son (and dog), and enjoyed his description of the different cranberry varieties that he had planted, the various steps they have to go through every season to produce a crop and, despite all his knowledge and technology, his continual reliance on a very unpredictable mother nature. I…smile to think of how far removed this experience is from my thoughts and expectations coming out of UConn. What I really love about these farm visits is that the knowledge I gain and relationships I foster make me a better lawyer for the Cooperative – a much better lawyer!

Glick:  I recently had the opportunity to negotiate the settlement of a class action and related dispute with a company whose senior lawyer handling the matter was a UConn Law classmate. Though 3,000 miles and 25 years apart, our Law School friendship and immediate trust enabled us – once we both were engaged on the matter – to resolve a long-running, multi-million dollar, multi-party dispute.

Rigas: I was primarily responsible for guiding Armstrong through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process to resolve its historical asbestos liability… Dow Corning, a world leader in the manufacture of silicone products, was involved in mass tort litigation involving its silicone breast implant device which was resolved ultimately through a Chapter 11 filing. As part of the resolution of that issue, I was primarily responsible for the recovery of over $1.5 billion in products liability insurance coverage and the settlement of class action litigations in Australia and Canada. 

Dorsey: Tiffany vs. eBay, a (so-far) unsuccessful effort to impose reason-to-know contributory trademark infringement liability to on-line auctioneers. I once worked on the acquisition of a French company that required negotiation with four sets of principals: the original owner died before the contract could be signed; his widow was kidnapped and murdered before the second set of contracts could be signed; the daughter was ready to sign, but then an illegitimate heir appeared and everything had to be renegotiated again.

Callahan: Yahoo! has been at the forefront of many groundbreaking issues in the online world over the past 15 years, including global jurisdiction over Internet content and communications, free expression, privacy, intellectual property protection, copyright and content protections. One of the most challenging and rewarding areas we work in is the global expansion of our business, and the opportunities the Internet and Yahoo! can bring to the emerging markets around the world in terms of fostering communication and global awareness.

Q. What are the most significant differences between practicing at a law firm and working for a “single client” as an in-house attorney?

Venable: In private practice, your everyday focus is on the client and delivering good legal services, but the big emphasis on amassing billable hours can sometimes take away from the joy of practicing law. It’s certainly a necessary reality, as you need to stay in business, but I saw it burn out a lot of good lawyers. As in-house counsel, the client focus and need for good work product remains, but the workload is a little more frenetic because of your close proximity to the clients. They are a constant presence and you have people in and out of your office all day or calling frequently. Your close proximity means you get used more but it’s good because you get to see everything, not only the things that touch your area of expertise, but also other issues that in-house clients just want a lawyer’s perspective on.  

Stamm: I have strong personal connection with my ultimate clients – the grower owners of Ocean Spray. I know the cooperative and the grower-owners far better, far more in depth than any outside lawyer could possibly know. Because of this knowledge…we can add value in many ways, often without being asked. In addition, we have a real, tangible long term connection with the brand and the people. That said, the in-house model is not necessarily better. Because of these connections, the pressure involved with working next door to approximately 500 demanding business clients can be intense. I know plenty of lawyers who really enjoy getting to know different clients and different industries.  

Dorsey: When working for a single client, I believe that lawyers are more vested in the ultimate business success of the transactions on which they work because they are around to take the blame for failure and the credit for success.

Winakor: I think that one of the biggest misconceptions about in-house practice is the “single client” idea. Both in the corporate and non-profit world, I had and have as many, if not more varied clients than when I worked outside. The nice part about it is that I get to know my clients better as I see them every day and I get to walk them through routine matters as well as complex legal issues. In house, and absent the hurdle of “engaging outside counsel,” your clients are much more likely to involve you if you establish the right relationship. This makes it more interesting as an attorney and I think that it enables me to give much better advice.

Callahan: My experience…at Skadden Arps was very rewarding in learning the basics from some of the world’s finest corporate attorneys. I have enjoyed being able to put those skills to work in house as our business has evolved over the last decade, and also in building a team around the world. The experience of business counseling, management and leadership of a broad-based team of legal and other professionals is very different in house, and a real challenge and pleasure.

O’Conor: In private practice there seemed to be a real push toward specialization. Would I be a pension lawyer or a real estate lawyer? Would I work in trusts and estates or employment law?  As an in-house counsel, I am all of the above.  In one meeting I am advising on an employment matter, in the next I am reviewing the terms of a software contract or figuring out trademark issues related to the use of a cartoon character in promotional materials. 

Q. What types of law do you practice most in your position?

Callahan: I spend the majority of my time working with our board of directors and senior management on strategic matters, corporate governance, corporate transactions, government affairs/public policy and litigation. I also spend a lot of time managing the global team and the administrative matters associated with being on the company’s executive committee.

Stamm: This one is hard to answer. Every day is a potpourri of business and legal issues. While I am an absolute expert as to knowing a single client, with respect to areas of law, I am somewhat a jack-of-all-trades.

Hopko: My current position focuses on corporate governance and related matters. The recent momentum in Washington for regulatory reform in a variety of areas that affect public companies makes this a very dynamic area of the law at the moment. I also work with UTC’s intellectual property counsel, which I find very interesting given that I almost became an intellectual property attorney. Given the sophisticated products that UTC makes and the global reach of our business, intellectual property law is a fascinating area. Throughout my career, I also have had the good fortune of working on a variety of transactional matters, both domestic and international.

Glick: At Public Storage, with over one million tenants, there is naturally a high volume of generally low value litigation cases, along with a handful of class actions typically involving wage and hour or ADA (Title III) claims, and of course a steady stream of real estate related disputes, including condemnations. There is public and private company and property M&A and joint venture activity, both in the United States and Europe. Finally, there is the ever-expanding corporate governance and compliance challenge of heading up the legal function at a U.S. public company that is a real estate investment trust with operations in 38 states and internationally.

Winakor: This question is interesting because I think the longer a general counsel practices, the less noticeable different “types” of law become. I spend a lot of time dealing with non-profit issues, the regulation of education, general contract issues, litigation management and policy implementation and enforcement.

O’Conor: My focus at the Foundation is on the law of tax-exempt organizations, but as a practical matter the scope is always broader. I review and draft gift documents, contracts, and internal policies; advise and assist with matters relating to corporate governance, risk management, tax and business issues, and employee matters; manage estate gifts through the probate process; manage real estate gifts; and train staff in matters of potential legal risk to the Foundation. There is a lot of ground to cover.

Dorsey: Intellectual property, finance, commercial, intellectual property, SEC and employee relations.

Q. What are the most challenging facets of your job?

Rigas: Some of the most challenging facets of the job involved the negotiations and litigation to resolve coverage disputes with insurers for both asbestos and breast implant claims and settlement of the underlying claims through negotiation or litigation. The defense of mass tort litigation is particularly challenging, which is why Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings are sometimes necessary to manage that process.

Callahan: Yahoo!’s business spans over 500 million users every month for our email, communications, digital media and advertising businesses. Operating a 24/7 online business that is accessible globally presents unique challenges every day – one of the most challenging aspects is the “always on” nature of our global technology platforms.

Hopko: You never know what the day will bring and the advances in electronic communications have modified the turnaround time expectations. Whether your client is a local business colleague who drops into your office with an issue for you to address or a business colleague in another country, the turnaround time expectation is the same. So, you are constantly reviewing priorities and adjusting – and that can be a challenge – but the varied nature of the work is also what makes the in-house practice interesting.

Stamm: Balancing the needs of the development of junior lawyers with the needs of the business is always the toughest part of my job. We have only five lawyers in the department and in our office alone we have approximately 500 demanding business clients. We have more than 150 additional clients in the field and/or overseas. Delegating assignments, focusing coaching and training is a high priority, but sometimes that priority is in tension with the demands of the business and clients.    

Venable: Staying aligned with the goals of the business. As an attorney, you sometimes have to wait for someone to bring you the legal issue to solve. As a business partner, you must be proactive and  constantly formulating ways to add value and improve the bottom line of the business.  

Glick: In house we all generally have to do more with less, thankfully aided increasingly by improvements in technology, which help better support our activity.

Dorsey: Setting priorities for myself and my staff, and balancing commercial needs against the challenges of protecting one of the world’s most famous trademarks.

Winakor: Like anything else, it is hard to get to everything. As a GC without a big staff, I have to triage every day. In this sense, I think my business background is helpful as I prioritize what I think is most critical to (Wesleyan).

Q. What trends do you see occurring in the world of in-house counsels?

O’Conor: By birth or by training, lawyers are adept at risk identification. We can’t go to a store or take a child to a birthday party without wondering if there should be an extra railing or a bigger warning sign. As organizations continue to focus on enterprise risk management as a key component to protecting the bottom-line, the role of in-house counsels in managing risks and developing appropriate policies and procedures will continue to grow. 

Winakor: In higher education specifically, I think that the concept of a general counsel is becoming even more commonplace. Historically, I think that small- to medium-size colleges and universities relied on the local or regional law firm when they thought they needed a lawyer. While larger and public schools always saw the value in on-site legal advice (often with big departments), these other schools are realizing that an in-house legal function can serve varied needs and, sometimes, even help administer effectively and efficiently.

Dorsey: The developing tensions between the oversight duties of outside directors, shareholder demands for performance and management’s day-to-day responsibilities.

Rigas: In terms of in-house trends I have observed in my career, the two most significant…have been the taking in-house of increasingly more complex legal work and the opportunities sometimes afforded attorneys in the legal department to take assignments outside the department in non-legal business or administrative roles. 

Callahan: A premium on excellence in the communication of legal advice to clients in a manner which enables business objectives to move forward. Developing a true partnership with a foundation of open communication and trust is a key facet of the in-house counsel position – and one that must be built with management and the board. The general counsel occupies a unique place among executive management in helping build that trust and open communication in a constructive way to serve the long-term interests of the owners of the firm – the shareholders.

Stamm: For us, it is the incorporation of the legal department into the business teams. At Ocean Spray, our department has prided itself as winning the trust and loyalty of our business colleagues and (has) been embraced as a true business partner – not just the lawyers to check off at the end of  a deal or particular issue. We are involved with business and strategic initiatives and decisions from the beginning. The legal perspective we bring and our approach to problems adds value in a lot of ways…

Venable: Definitely an emphasis on creative billing arrangements. When I started in private practice you didn’t see the pushback you see today on legal bills. In-house counsel is tasked with partnering with their outside firms to devise cost-effective ways to save on legal bills while at the same time maintaining a high level of quality legal service. I also believe in-house counsel will have to continue to be more business savvy and proactive. You must have constant awareness of the internal and external factors that may affect the business and use that information to help the company accomplish its objectives.

Hopko: There is likely to be additional focus on processes and efficiency-enhancing opportunities. The need to provide high quality legal services will not change. However, I believe that corporations in general are becoming more aware of process tools that enable high quality legal services to be provided in a cost-efficient manner.  That also could mean that additional work will be done in house. When there is a need to retain outside counsel, we will expect that the firms also will have process enhancers in place to provide such services in a high quality, cost-effective manner.

Q. How have the challenges in the economy affected your work?

Winakor: Working in house in a large corporation for nearly a decade, I think I was more prepared for the economic downturn than most attorneys. The idea of economic contingency planning and thriftiness reached doctors and lawyers later than most. Similarly, higher education has been affected more by the most recent economic challenges than, perhaps, in any previous time. I think that the corporate experience I have allows me to provide a relatively unique perspective to my university clients as they face tougher economic conditions.

O’Conor: Non-profit organizations, like their for-profit counterparts, have faced many challenges in the economic downturn. On the fundraising side, uncertainty in the economy makes it difficult for large and small donors alike to make the financial decision to commit funds to even the worthiest of causes. This…has led donors and their counsels to be more diligent than ever in negotiating gift agreements I am charged with drafting. The investment market downturn in the early part of the recession also had a significant impact.  As a fiduciary responsible for investing contributed funds, the downturn necessitated revisions to the Foundation’s investment and spending policies, which required significant legal analysis.

The economic challenges also have had a real impact from a budgetary standpoint…Outside counsel budgets needed to be trimmed (leaving more work to be done in house), benefits programs needed to be altered (requiring plan document revisions), and the very difficult decision to conduct a reduction in staff had to be implemented with compassion and attention to all legalities.

Venable: Now more than ever, in-house counsel is being asked to watch internal and external costs. CEO’s expect in-house counsel to be just as attuned to costs as their business counterparts. They expect more cost efficiency from firms handling the company’s legal work. We are much more attentive to billing and costs than I think most people in the profession can ever remember.  

Hopko: Generally, the need to provide high quality legal services in a cost-effective manner is independent of economic conditions. The nature of the issues may be different when economic times are challenging, but the work is just as interesting. 

Callahan: Like all global businesses, we’ve been affected over the years by changes to the global advertising market – and I’ve had to grow and shrink the size of our department’s footprint accordingly over the years. But, those challenges present unique opportunities in finding efficiencies, and smarter ways of working.

Dorsey: Cost pressures affect all aspects of my work, including relations with employees, law firms and merchandise vendors.

Stamm: Unfortunately, our continued success in the tough economy has made us a bit of a target for litigation. This includes business litigation, employment litigation and cranberry industry litigation…

Q. What Law School classes and/or professors most influence your work?

Dorsey: I was most influenced by Professors (Cornelius) Scanlon (Contracts), (Craig) Shea (Corporations and Corporate Finance) and (Nicholas) Wolfson (Securities Law).

Rigas: In terms of my UConn Law School experience, perhaps the most memorable was the opportunity to have Professor Fleming James teach my first year torts class. 

Hopko: Without question, Professor Mark Janis had the most influence on my career. His international law class was instrumental in providing a global perspective to the practice of law and the business environment. 

Stamm: It amazes me that after almost 20 years, how much some of my law school classes are still relevant to what I do today, especially the first-year classes. Civil Procedure with Professor (Colin) Tait – I think about all the time. Contracts with Professor (Robert) Birmingham … I use his “prisoners dilemma” example of contracts at least once a month. Additionally, while I did not know it then, my corporate finance course with Professor (Phillip) Blumberg proved extremely valuable. Now, if we had a class that even remotely mentioned the Capper-Volstead Act, it would have been extremely useful!

Venable: I really enjoyed my time at UConn…It was not the competitive pressure cooker you read so much about at other law schools. Of course, everyone wanted to do well, but not at the expense of a classmate. People were willing to share information and ideas and there was a great deal of respect for each other. The faculty was great. I had some very inspirational professors from John Brittain to Deb Calloway to Jeremy Paul, who was my Constitutional Law professor.  I can still remember Dean Paul asking his favorite question: “Where does it say that in the Constitution?”  He really got you to think before you spoke.

Glick: One of the most helpful courses in Law School was Legal Writing, as it introduced the need and underscored the importance of written communication and advocacy skills. Even after 25+ years of practice, I am still learning how to write and communicate with different audiences from the boardroom to the storeroom…But most influential and fun for me were the courses taught by Professor (Mark) Janis and the late Professor (Olimpiad) Ioffe. (They) allowed me to continue an academic pursuit of many things international.

Callahan: Professor (Richard) Pomp and his tax classes and general mentorship were memorable and a big influence. Professor (Nicholas) Wolfson’s securities law and corporate transactions classes were exciting, practical and key to my further interest in corporate law.  Professor (Loftus) Becker’s Con Law classes were incredibly rewarding and interesting.

Winakor: I was a non-traditional law school student, transitioning from active military duty. I was married, had a mortgage and my first child during law school…I think the most rewarding aspect was learning how to organize and think through issues. I'll never forget certain classes: Torts with Professor (James) Stark, UCC with Professor (Richard) Kay and Property with Professor (Terry) Tondro come to mind. While specific issues and points of law may fade into memory, you tend to remember the way in which many law school classes teach you to probe, second guess and prepare for the uncertain or unlikely.

O’Conor: When I reflect on the course or professor who has stayed with me throughout my career, I think about Adjunct Professor Ira Goldman’s employee benefits class. It was with some trepidation that as a student I signed up for a code-driven class that ran until after 9:00 p.m., but the course was a terrific one because of Professor Goldman’s enthusiasm for the subject and real world experience. After law school I had the privilege to work as an associate for Ira in his firm’s employee benefits group. I only worked with him for a short time, but during that time I remained a student to his thorough analysis and practical approach to the law. Some years after I left the firm, the tables were turned as I sought outside counsel from Ira on a benefits matter (realizing every law student’s dream to be the professor’s “boss”). I am grateful that the School of Law introduced me to an exceptional lawyer from whom I continue to learn.

Feature: In-House Counsel
Around Campus
Graduate Profile: Emily Roisman '85
Graduate Profile: Katayoun C. Sadeghi '10
Faculty News
Faculty Profile: Jill Anderson
Faculty Profile: Richard A. Wilson
Giving Back
Remembering: Emilio Q. "Mim" Daddario '42


  • Dennis G. Eveleigh, justice, Connecticut Supreme Court